New gTLD Program
Community Priority Evaluation Report
Report Date: 8 October 2015
Application ID:
Applied-for String:
Applicant Name:

1-1713-23699
Gay

dotgay LLC

Overall Community Priority Evaluation Summary
Community Priority Evaluation Result
Did Not Prevail
Thank you for your participation in the New gTLD Program. After careful consideration and extensive
review of the information provided in your application, including documents of support, the Community
Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application did not meet the requirements specified in the
Applicant Guidebook. Your application did not prevail in Community Priority Evaluation.
Your application may still resolve string contention through the other methods as described in Module 4 of
the Applicant Guidebook.
Panel Summary
Overall Scoring

10 Point(s)Criteria#1: Community Establishment#2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community#3: Registration Policies#4: Community Endorsement
Total

Earned404210Achievable
4
4
4
4
16

Minimum Required Total Score to Pass 14

Criterion #1: Community Establishment
4/4 Point(s)1-A Delineation
2/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the community as defined in the application
met the criterion for Delineation as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the
Applicant Guidebook, as the community defined in the application is clearly delineated, organized and preexisting. The application received the maximum score of 2 points under criterion 1-A: Delineation.
Delineation
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for delineation: there must be a clear, straightforward
membership definition and there must be awareness and recognition of a community (as defined by theapplicant) among its members.
In its application, dotgay LLC defines its community as follows:

Page 1

…individuals whose gender identities and sexual orientation are outside of the norms defined forheterosexual behavior of the larger society. The Gay Community includes individuals who identify
themselves as male or female homosexuals, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, ally and manyother terminology - in a variety of languages - that has been used at various points to refer most
simply to those individuals who do not participate in mainstream cultural practices pertaining togender identity, expression and adult consensual sexual relationships…
The membership criterion to join the Gay Community is the process of ‘coming out’. This process is
unique for every individual, organization and ally involving a level of risk in simply becoming
visible…
Membership in the Gay Community is not restricted by any geographical boundaries and is united
by a common interest in human rights. (Application, section 20(a))
The applicant relies on the “process of coming out” to delineate its members, who are individuals with nonnormative sexual orientation or gender identities, as well as their allies1. The process of “coming out” is bynature personal, and may vary from person to person. Some individuals within the proposed community may
not come out publicly, reflecting real or feared persecution for doing so. Similarly, membership in acommunity organization may not be feasible for the same reason. Furthermore, organizations within theapplicant’s defined community recognize “coming out” as a defining characteristic of individuals within thedefined community.2 Many such organizations advocate on behalf of individuals even though they are notmembers, precisely because their coming out publicly may be illegal or otherwise harmful. Therefore, thePanel recognizes that the standard of “coming out” – whether publicly or privately – as homosexual,
bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or ally is sufficiently clear and straightforward to meet the AGB’s
requirements.3
In addition, the community as defined in the application has awareness and recognition among its members.
There is an implicit recognition and awareness of belonging to a community of others who have come out as
having non-normative sexual orientations or gender identities, or as their allies. As cited by the applicant insupporting materials, for example, the American Psychological Association recognizes the process of coming
out as a key part of entering the community.4 For many individuals, this awareness and recognition ofcommunity is made more explicit, such as by membership in organizations, participation in events, andadvocacy for the rights of individuals with non-normative sexual orientations and gender identities. As theapplicant states, organizations and individuals within the community also often cohere around areas of
discrimination, whether in the workplace, marketplace, the media, or other areas. Regardless of whether thisawareness and recognition of shared community is explicit or rather an implicit consequence of one’s coming

1 The Panel, following the applicant’s reference to “individuals whose gender identities and sexual orientation are outsideof the norms defined for heterosexual behavior of the larger society”, uses the phrase “non-normative sexual
orientations and/or gender identities” throughout this document. The term “non-normative” is used both by theapplicant as well as organizations, academics, and publications discussing the topic; it is not the Panel’s terminology, nor
is it considered to be derogatory in this context. This phrase refers to the same individuals usually referred to with theacronyms “LGBT”, “GLBT”, “LGBTQ”, and others. Because issues related to these acronyms are relevant later in thisdocument, they are not used here.
2 See as examples http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/coming-out-center andhttp://www.lalgbtcenter.org/coming_out_support
3 For allies, the “coming out” process may differ from that of individuals who are acknowledging privately or sharing
publicly their own non-normative sexual orientation or gender identity. Nevertheless, there are risks associated even withsupporting non-heterosexual individuals; making this support explicit is how allies can mark their awareness andrecognition of the wider community and their sense of belonging to it. For example, large international organizations
within the applicant’s defined community, such as GLAAD, HRC, and PFLAG offer concrete avenues for individuals to“come out” as allies. See http://www.glaad.org/form/come-outas-ally-join-allynetwork-today,
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/straight-guide-to-lgbt-americans, http://community.pflag.org/page.aspx?pid=539
4 http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.pdf

Page 2

out, the Panel has determined that the link among these individuals goes well beyond “a mere commonalityof interest” and satisfies the AGB’s requirements for recognition and awareness.5
The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the community as defined in the application
satisfies both of the conditions to fulfill the requirements for delineation.
Organization
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for organization: there must be at least one entity
mainly dedicated to the community, and there must be documented evidence of community activities.
There are many organizations that are dedicated to the community as defined by the application, althoughmost of these organizations are dedicated to a specific geographic area and/or segment of the proposed
community. However, there is at least one entity mainly dedicated to the entire global community as defined:
the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), an umbrella organization
whose organizational members also include those representing allies. According to the letter of support fromILGA:
The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) is the only
worldwide federation of more than 1,200 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI)
national and local organizations, fighting for the rights of LGBTI people. Established in 1978 in
Coventry (UK), ILGA has member organizations in all five continents and is divided into six
regions; ILGA PanAfrica, ILGA ANZAPI (Aotearoa/New Zealand, Australia and Pacific Islands),
ILGA Asia, ILGA Europe, ILGA LAC (Latin America and Caribbean) and ILGA North America.
The community as defined in the application also has documented evidence of community activities. This isconfirmed by detailed information on ILGA’s website, including documentation of conferences, calls toaction, member events, and annual reports.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the community as defined in the application
satisfies both conditions to fulfill the requirements for organization.
Pre-existence
To fulfill the requirements for pre-existence, the community must have been active prior to September 2007
(when the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed).
The community as defined in the application was active prior to September 2007. According to theapplication:…in the 20th century a sense of community continued to emerge through the formation of the firstincorporated gay rights organization (Chicago Society for Human Rights, 1924). Particularly after
1969, several groups continued to emerge and become more visible, in the US and other countries,
evidencing awareness and cohesion among members.
Additionally, the ILGA, an organization mainly dedicated to the community as defined by the applicant, as
referred to above, has records of activity beginning before 2007. Individuals with non-normative sexual
orientations and/or gender identities, as well as their supporters, have been increasingly active in many
countries as they work to advance their acceptance and civil rights.6

5 Although the score on Delineation is unchanged since the first evaluation, the Panel’s analysis has changed due to theapplicant’s response to a Clarifying Question regarding the role of Authentication Partners (APs). Previously, the Panel
had understood the APs to be a mechanism of members’ awareness and recognition, but, as above, that is no longer thecase and the role of APs is correctly understood to be relevant for the purposes of Section 3.
6 See for example, advocacy in China, Guyana, and Argentina: http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/27/world/asia/chinagay-lesbian-marriage/, http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/guyana-urged-to-end-ban-on-gay-sex-at-un-human-rightscommission/, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/18/argentina-gay-marriage_n_1018536.html

Page 3

The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the community as defined in the application
fulfills the requirements for pre-existence.
1-B Extension
2/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as identified in the application
met the criterion for Extension specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the
Applicant Guidebook, as the application demonstrates that the community meets the requirements for sizeand demonstrates longevity. The application received a maximum score of 2 points under criterion 1-B:
Extension.
Size
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for size: the community must be of considerable size,
and it must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application is of considerable size. The application cites global estimates ofthe self-identified population of individuals with non-normative sexual orientations and/or gender identities,
but relies on a more conservative size based on the number of such individuals who are affiliated with one ormore of the applicant’s community organizations:
Most studies place the global gay population at 1.2% (Williams 1996), higher in countries withexisting gays rights protections projected at 4-6% (eg. Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, UnitedStates). Rather than projecting the size of the community from these larger global statisticalestimates, dotgay LLC has established a conservative plan with identified partners and endorsing
organizations (listed in 20F) representing over 1,000 organizations and 7 million members. This
constitutes our base line estimate for projecting the size of the Gay Community and the minimum
pool from which potential registrants will stem.
As the applicant also acknowledges, estimating the size of the defined community is difficult because, forexample, of the risks of individuals self-identifying in many parts of the world. The applicant instead offers a“minimum” size based on the 7 million individuals who are members of one or more of its “Authentication
Partners”, organizations serving as entry points for domain registration. Regardless of the method used to
produce these estimates, the Panel has determined that the size of the delineated community is considerable.7
In addition, as previously stated, the community as defined in the application has awareness and recognition
among its members.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the community as defined in the application
satisfies both of the conditions to fulfill the requirements for size.
Longevity
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for longevity: the community must demonstrate
longevity and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application demonstrates longevity. The pursuits of the community definedin the application are of a lasting, non-transient nature. According to the application materials:…one of the first movements for the human rights of the Gay Community was initiated by Magnus
Hirschfeld (Scientific Humanitarian Committee, 1897).
The organization of individuals with non-normative sexual orientations and/or gender identities and theirsupporters has accelerated since then, especially in recent decades, and an organized presence now exists inmany parts of the world. Evidence shows a clear trend toward greater visibility of these individuals,

7 The Panel has verified the applicant’s estimates of the defined community’s size and compared it with other estimates.

Even smaller estimates constitute a substantial number of individuals especially when considered globally.

Page 4

recognition of their civil and human rights, and community organization, both in the US and elsewhere.8
While socio-political obstacles to community organization remain in some parts of the world,9 the overall
historical trend of increasing rights and organization demonstrates that the community as defined has
considerable longevity.
In addition, as previously stated, the community as defined in the application has awareness and recognition
among its members.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the community as defined in the application
satisfies both the conditions to fulfill the requirements for longevity.
Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community
0/4 Point(s)2-A Nexus
0/3 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for
Nexus as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook.
The string does not identify or match the name of the community as defined in the application, nor is it awell known short-form or abbreviation of the community. The application received a score of 0 out of 3
points under criterion 2-A: Nexus.
To receive a partial score for Nexus, the applied-for string must identify the community. According to the
AGB, “‘Identify’ means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community
members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community.” In addition to meeting the criterion
for “identify”, in order to receive the maximum score for Nexus, the applied-for string must match the nameof the community or be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community.
In order to identify the community defined by the applicant as required for Nexus, the applied-for string
must “closely describe the community or the community members”, i.e. the applied-for string is what “thetypical community member would naturally be called” (AGB). The Panel has therefore considered the extent
to which the string “gay” describes the members of the applicant’s defined community and has evaluatedwhether “gay” is what these individuals would naturally be called. The Panel has determined that more than asmall part of the applicant’s defined community is not identified by the applied-for string, as described
below, and that it therefore does not meet the requirements for Nexus.
The community as defined by the application consists ofindividuals who identify themselves as male or female homosexuals, bisexual, transgender, queer,intersex, ally and many other terminology - in a variety of languages - that has been used at various
points to refer most simply to those individuals who do not participate in mainstream cultural
practices pertaining to gender identity, expression and adult consensual sexual relationships. The
Gay Community has also been referred to using the acronym LGBT, and sometimes the more
inclusive LGBTQIA. The most common and globally understood term - used both by members of
the Gay Community and in the world at large - is however “Gay”.
The applicant’s assertion that the applied-for string (“gay”) is the “most common” term used by members of
its defined community to refer to all gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and ally individuals iscentral to its demonstration of Nexus. In order to support this claim, the applicant, in its application and insupporting materials received both prior to and since its initial evaluation, has offered evidence that the Panel
has evaluated. The Panel has also conducted its own research. The Panel has determined that the applied-for
string does not sufficiently identify some members of the applicant’s defined community, in particulartransgender, intersex, and ally individuals. According to the Panel’s own review of the language used in the

8 Haggerty, George E. "Global Politics." In Gay Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland, 2000.
9 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/30/gay-rights-world-best-worst-countries

Page 5

media10 as well as by organizations that work within the community described by the applicant, transgender,intersex, and ally individuals are not likely to consider “gay” to be their “most common” descriptor, as theapplicant claims. These groups are most likely to use words such as “transgender,” “trans,” “intersex,” or“ally” because these words are neutral to sexual orientation, unlike “gay”. Both within the community andoutside of it, such as in the media, acronyms such as “LGBT,” “GLBT,” “LGBTQ,” or “LGBTQIA”11 areused to denote a group of individuals that includes those described above, i.e. transgender, intersex and ally
individuals. In fact, organizations within the defined community, when they are referring to groups thatspecifically include transgender, intersex or ally individuals, are careful not to use only the descriptor “gay,”
preferring one of the more inclusive terms12.
The first piece of evidence offered by the applicant to support the claim that “gay” is the “most common”
term used to describe the defined community is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and its
documentation of uses of the word “gay” over hundreds of years. It summarizes the shifting meaning of“gay” in order to show how the word has become embraced by at least a part of its defined community andto support its claim that it is the “most common” term for the entirety of its defined community. According
to the applicant, the OED shows that “Gay by the early 20th century progressed to its current reference to asexuality that was non-heterosexual” (application, 20(d)). The Panel agrees that the more derogatory uses of“gay” or uses unrelated to sexuality have largely fallen away, and that the word has come to refer tohomosexual women as well as men, as the applicant asserts, citing the OED. However, the Panel’s review of
the OED13 as well as other sources (cited below) does not support the applicant’s claim that “gay” identifies
or closely describes transgender, intersex, or ally individuals, or that “gay” is what these individuals “would
naturally be called,” as the AGB requires. This is because “gay” refers to homosexuality (and to some extent
non-heterosexuality more broadly), while transgender and intersex individuals may or may not identify as
homosexual or gay, and allies are generally understood to be heterosexual.
The applicant acknowledges that its application attempts to represent several groups of people, namely
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and ally (LGBTQIA) individuals. It claims that all of thesegroups, or “sub-communities”, are identified by what it calls the “umbrella” term “gay”:
The term “gay” today is a term that has solidified around encompassing several sub-communities ofindividuals whose gender identities and sexual orientation are outside of the norms defined forheterosexual behavior of the larger society. Within these sub-communities even further
classifications and distinctions can be made that further classify its members but are equally
comfortable identifying as gay, particularly to those outside their own sub-communities. As an
example, it has become commonplace for celebrities to acknowledge their homosexuality with the
now routine declaration of “Yup, I’m gay” on the cover of newsmagazines as the comedienne Ellen
Degeneres did when she “came out” on the cover of TIME magazine.
Notably, “gay” is used to super-identify all these groups and circumstances. Whether homosexual,
bisexual, transgender, intersex or ally, all members of the Gay Community march in the “gay pride
parade” read the same “gay media” and fight for the same “gay rights.” Gay has become theprevalent term in how members of this community refer to themselves when speaking about
themselves as demonstrated by the large number of organizations that use the term globally.
Despite the applicant’s assertions to the contrary, its own evidence here shows that “gay” is most commonlyused to refer to both men and women who identify as homosexual, and not necessarily to others. The
applicant’s “umbrella term” argument does not accurately describe, for example, the many similar
10 While a comprehensive survey of the media’s language in this field is not feasible, the Panel has relied on both the datain the applicant’s own analysis as well as on the Panel’s own representative samples of media.
11 There is some variability to these acronyms but one or another of them is very commonly used throughout thecommunity defined by the applicant to refer to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Allies.
12 While a survey of all LGBTQIA individuals and organizations globally would be impossible, the Panel has relied for
its research on many of the same media organizations and community organizations that the applicant recognizes.
Details of the Panel’s analysis follow.
13 See "gay, adj., adv., and n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2015. Web. 19 August 2015.

Page 6

transgender stories in the mass media where “gay” is not used to identify the subject.14 In these cases,“transgender” is used because “gay” does not identify those individuals. With regard to the applicant’s
argument that the various parts of its defined community are engaged in the same activities, such as “gaypride” events and “gay rights” advocacy, the Panel acknowledges that this is likely the case. However,transgender people’s participation in these activities no more identifies them as gay than allies’ participationin transgender rights advocacy identifies them as transgender. Indeed, there are many organizations focusedon events and advocacy specific to the needs of transgender individuals15 and they often take special care to
separate labels of sexual orientation from those of gender identity/expression.16 Similarly, the Panel has
reviewed the literature of several organizations that advocate and provide services and support for intersex
individuals and they clarify that sexual orientation is unrelated to being intersex.17 That is, while suchorganizations would fall within the applicant’s defined community, they explicitly differ on the applicant’s
assertion that the applied-for string “gay” identifies all LGBTQIA individuals. Thus, the applicant’s assertion
that even the members of its so-called sub-communities “are equally comfortable identifying as gay” is in fact
often not the case.
In materials provided in support of the application18, a survey of news media articles is analyzed in an effort
to show that “gay” is the most common name used to refer to the community defined by the applicant. This
analysis shows that indeed “gay” is used more frequently than terms such as “LGBT” or “LGBTQIA” inreference to both individuals and communities:
In the first random sample period (April 1-8, 2013), “gay” was used 2,342 times, “LGBT” 272 times,“lesbian” 1008 times, “queer” 76 times and “LGBTQ” 19 times. “LGBTQIAA” and “GLBTQ”
were not used at all, demonstrating that “gay” remains a default generic term for the community. An
overwhelming amount of the time these terms beyond gay were used in articles that also used gay.
Said another way, “LGBT” was used in only 35 articles that did not also use the term “gay,”“lesbian” in 43 articles, “queer” in 55, and “LGBTQ” in 3. Data shows, thus, that “gay” is both themost frequently used term when referring to non-heterosexual gender identity and sexual orientationand is used as an umbrella term to cover the diversity.
Despite this claim, the analysis fails to show that when “gay” is used in these articles it is used to identify
transgender, intersex, and/or ally individuals or communities. This is the key issue for the Panel’s
consideration of Nexus. That is, the greater use of “gay” does not show that “gay” in those instances is used
to identify all LGBTQIA individuals, as the applicant asserts and as would be required to receive credit on
Nexus. Indeed, the Panel’s own review of news media19 found that, while “gay” is more common than terms
such as “LGBTQ” or “LGBTQIA”, these terms are now more widely used than ever, in large part due totheir greater inclusivity and specificity than “gay”. Even several of the articles cited by the applicant in its
reconsideration request20 as evidence of its “umbrella term” argument do not show “gay” being used to
identify the groups in question, nor is “gay” the most commonly used term to refer to the aggregate
LGBTQIA community in these articles.21 Furthermore, researching sources from the same periods as the
14 As examples of cover stories that parallel the applicant’s own example from Time Magazine, see:

http://time.com/135480/transgender-tipping-point/ and http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/caitlynjenner-bruce-cover-annie-leibovitz. In these two very prominent examples, the articles do not use “gay” to refer to theirsubjects.
15 See for instance http://transgenderlawcenter.org/, http://srlp.org/, http://transequality.org/
16 See National Center for Transgender Equality: http://transequality.org/issues/resources/transgender-terminology
17 See for example the Organization International Intersex: http://oii-usa.org/1144/ten-misconceptions-intersex
18 See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gudelunas-to-icann-eiu-evaluators-30apr14-en.pdf,
drafted and submitted by David Gudelunas a member of the dotGay LLC team according to its website,
http://dotgay.com/the-dotgay-team/#section=Jamie_Baxter
19 As noted above, while a comprehensive survey of the media’s language in this field is not feasible, the Panel has relied
on both the applicant’s own analysis, as discussed here, as well as on the Panel’s own representative samples of media.
20 See dotGay’s Reconsideration Request: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/request-dotgay-annexesredacted-29nov14-en.pdf
21 See http://www.economist.com/news/international/21595034-more-places-are-seeing-gay-marchesor-cleversubstitutes-pride-and-prejudice, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/fashion/generation-lgbtqia.html,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/01/gender-and-sexual-orientation

Page 7

applicant’s analysis for the terms “transgender” or “intersex” shows again that these terms refer toindividuals and communities not identified by “gay”.22 In other words, “gay” is not used to refer to these
individuals because it does not closely describe them and it is not what they would naturally be called, as the AGB
requires for partial credit on Nexus.
Finally, the Panel reviewed in detail the many letters of support submitted on behalf of the applicant by many
LGBTQIA organizations worldwide. In addition to evaluating these letters of support, as noted in Section 4,
the Panel examined how these organizations refer to their members and those for whom they advocate,noting in particular the words used to identify them. In a minority of cases, these organizations included intheir letters the view that “gay” is an “umbrella term” for the LGBTQIA community, as argued by theapplicant. However, even the organizations that made this claim in their letters do not use the term “gay” toidentify their transgender, intersex, and/or ally members in their own organizational materials. In fact, thenames of many of these organizations usually include a term other than “gay” such as “LGBTQ” or, in thecase of some, “transgender” or “intersex”.
GLAAD, as an example of one of the applicant’s supporters, writes on its own website, “Transgender people
have a sexual orientation, just like everyone else. Transgender people may be straight, lesbian, gay, or
bisexual.”23 Indeed, it is for this reason that GLAAD, like other organizations active in the definedcommunity, have revised their names and use of labels specifically to be more inclusive of the individuals intheir communities whom “gay” does not identify by using instead terms like LGBTQ or LGBTQIA.24
Similarly, ally organizations such as PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) support
the applicant and reiterate the importance of allies in the struggles facing the LGBTQIA community.
However, not even these organizations use “gay” to describe allies. The Panel’s research and review of theapplicant’s materials has demonstrated that even the applicant’s supporters recognize that “gay” isinsufficient to identify the diversity of the LGBTQIA community, especially with regard to transgender,intersex, and ally individuals.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the applied-for string does not identify ormatch the name of the community as defined in the application, nor is it a well known short-form or
abbreviation of the community. It therefore does not meet the requirements for Nexus.
2-B Uniqueness
0/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for
Uniqueness as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant
Guidebook as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus. The application received a score of 0 out of 1
point under criterion 2-B: Uniqueness.
To fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness, the “string has no other significant meaning beyond identifying thecommunity described in the application,” (AGB, emphasis added) and it must also score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus. The
string as defined in the application cannot demonstrate uniqueness as it does not score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus(i.e., it does not identify the community described, as above). The Community Priority Evaluation panel has
determined that the applied-for string is ineligible for a Uniqueness score of 1.
Criterion #3: Registration Policies
4/4 Point(s)3-A Eligibility
1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application met the criterion for Eligibility
as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as
22 While it is not possible for the Panel to review all the articles in the LexisNexis search results cited by the applicant,the Panel reviewed a representative sample of articles from the same time periods.
23 See http://www.glaad.org/transgender/transfaq
24 In 2013, to be more inclusive of transgender individuals by not including them in the label “gay” or “lesbian”, theorganization’s name officially was changed to GLAAD, as opposed to being an acronym for Gay and Lesbian Alliance
Against Defamation (http://www.glaad.org/about/history). This is reflective of the trend the Panel identified amongorganizations within the defined community towards greater inclusivity and away from names and labels that identified
only gays and lesbians.

Page 8eligibility is restricted to community members. The application received a maximum score of 1 point undercriterion 3-A: Eligibility.
To fulfill the requirements for Eligibility, the registration policies must restrict the eligibility of prospective
registrants to community members. The application demonstrates adherence to this requirement byspecifying that registration in “.gay is restricted to members of the Gay Community. Eligibility is determinedthrough formal membership with any of dotgay LLC’s Authentication Partners (AP) from the community.”
According to the application, and as the applicant has confirmed in follow-up materials, in order to register adomain, the applicant requires
community members to have registered with one of our Authenticating Partners (process describedin 20E). The Authentication Partners are the result of a century or more of community members
voluntarily grouping themselves into gay civic organizations.
As the application explains, these Authentication Partners (APs) include some of the largest organizations
dedicated to members of the defined community and these organizations will provide “the most trusted entry
points into .gay” while “reducing risk to unqualified registrations”.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application fulfills the requirements for
Eligibility.
3-B Name Selection
1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application met the criterion for Name
Selection as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook,as name selection rules are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for
gTLD. The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-B: Name Selection.
To fulfill the requirements for Name Selection, the registration policies must be consistent with thearticulated community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. The application demonstrates adherence tothis requirement by outlining the types of names that may be registered within the .gay top-level domain,
including rules barring “[s]ensitive words or phrases that incite or promote discrimination or violent
behavior, including anti-gay hate speech.” The rules are consistent with the purpose of the gTLD. The
Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application fulfills the requirements for Name
Selection.
3-C Content and Use
1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application met the criterion for Content
and Use as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook,as the rules for content and use are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the appliedfor gTLD. The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-C: Content and Use.
To fulfill the requirements for Content and Use, the registration policies must include rules for content anduse for registrants that are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for
gTLD. This includes “efforts to prevent incitement to or promotion of real or perceived discrimination
based upon race, color, gender, sexual orientation or gender expression.”
The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application fulfills the requirements forContent and Use.
3-D Enforcement
1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application met the criterion for
Enforcement as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant
Guidebook, as the application provided specific enforcement measures and appropriate appeal mechanisms.
The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-D: Enforcement.
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement: the registration policies must
include specific enforcement measures constituting a coherent set, and there must be appropriate appeals

Page 9mechanisms. The application outlines policies that include specific enforcement measures constituting a
coherent set. The application also outlines a comprehensive list of investigation procedures, andcircumstances in which the registry is entitled to suspend domain names. The application also outlines anappeals process, managed by the Registry, to which any party unsuccessful in registration, or against whom
disciplinary action is taken, will have the right to access.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application fulfills the requirements for
Enforcement.
Criterion #4: Community Endorsement
2/4 Point(s)Support for or opposition to a CPE gTLD application may come in any of three ways: through anapplication comment on ICANN’s website, attachment to the application, or by correspondence withICANN. The Panel reviews these comments and documents and, as applicable, attempts to verify them as
per the guidelines published on the ICANN CPE website. Further details and procedures regarding thereview and verification process may be found at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe. The tablebelow summarizes the review and verification of all support and opposition documents for the dotgay LLC
application for the string “GAY”.
Summary of Review & Verification of Support/Opposition Materials as of 5 September 201525
Total Received andReviewed

Total Valid for
Verification

Verification
Attempted

Successfully
Verified

Application
Comments

177

0

0

0

Attachments to
20(f)

128

128

128

51

Correspondence26

152

136

136

56

Grand Total

457

264

264

107

4-A Support
1/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application partially met the criterion for
Support specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as
there was documented support from at least one group with relevance. The application received a score of 1out of 2 points under criterion 4-A: Support.
To receive the maximum score for Support, the applicant is, or has documented support from, therecognized community institution(s)/member organization(s), or has otherwise documented authority torepresent the community. In this context, “recognized” refers to the institution(s)/organization(s) that,through membership or otherwise, are clearly recognized by the community members as representative of
the community. To receive a partial score for Support, the applicant must have documented support from atleast one group with relevance. “Relevance” refers to the communities explicitly and implicitly addressed by
the application’s defined community.
25 The table below reflects all comments, attachments, and pieces of correspondence received by the Panel as of the date

noted pertaining to the application both during the period of its previous evaluation and the present one. The
Verification Attempted column includes efforts made by the Panel to contact those entities that did not include contact
information.
26 The Panel reviewed 41 pieces of correspondence that contained 152 individual letters.

Page 10

The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the applicant was not the recognizedcommunity institution(s)/member organization(s), nor did it have documented authority to represent thecommunity, or documented support from the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s).
While the ILGA is sufficient to meet the AGB’s requirement for an “entity mainly dedicated to thecommunity” under Delineation (1-A), it does not meet the standard of a “recognized” organization. The
AGB specifies that “recognized” means that an organization must be “clearly recognized by the community
members as representative of the community.” The ILGA, as shown in its mission and activities, is clearly
dedicated to the community and it serves the community and its members in many ways, but “recognition”
demands not only this unilateral dedication of an organization to the community, but a reciprocal recognitionon the part of community members of the organization’s authority to represent them. There is no single suchorganization recognized by all of the defined community’s members as the representative of the definedcommunity in its entirety. However, the applicant possesses documented support from many groups with
relevance; their verified documentation of support contained a description of the process and rationale usedin arriving at the expression of support, showing their understanding of the implications of supporting theapplication. Despite the wide array of organizational support, however, the applicant does not have thesupport from the recognized community institution, as noted above, and the Panel has not found evidence
that such an organization exists. The Community Priority Evaluation Panel has determined that the applicant
partially satisfies the requirements for Support.
4-B Opposition
1/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application partially met the criterion for
Opposition specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook,as the application received relevant opposition from one source. The application received a score of 1 out of
2 points under criterion 4-B: Opposition.
To receive the maximum score for Opposition, the application must not have received any opposition of
relevance. To receive a partial score for Opposition, the application must have received opposition from, at
most, one relevant group of non-negligible size.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that there is opposition to the application fromone group of non-negligible size.27 The opposition comes from a local organization in the United States
whose mission, membership, and activities make it relevant to the community as defined in the application.
The organization is of non-negligible size, as required by the AGB. The grounds of opposition are related to
how the applied-for string represents the diversity of the LGBTQ community and the opposition is notmade for any reason forbidden by the AGB, such as competition or obstruction. Therefore, the Panel has
determined that the applicant partially satisfied the requirements for Opposition.

Disclaimer: Please note that these Community Priority Evaluation results do not necessarily determine thefinal result of the application. In limited cases the results might be subject to change. These results do notconstitute a waiver or amendment of any provision of the Applicant Guidebook or the Registry Agreement.
For updated application status and complete details on the program, please refer to the Applicant Guidebook
and the ICANN New gTLDs microsite at <newgtlds.icann.org>.

27 The Panel has reviewed all letters of opposition and support, even when more than one letter has been received fromthe same organization. In those cases, as with all others, the Panel has reviewed each letter to determine the most current
stance of each organization with respect to the application. In the case of this opposition, all letters have been reviewed.

Page 11